HMMM... This Game Answered a Lot

[ringout]

Not to Highjack the Thread but Bo Ryan's record in the tournement has been astounding.  Since 2003 he has 13 wins BUT ONLY ONE HAS BEEN OVER A LOWER SEEDED (better) TEAM.  That was the win in 2009 as a twelve over a 5.  By contrast Buzz has 3 tournement wins and 2 (the two this year) are over teams with a lower seed.  Now to keep that in prospective this thread is prompted by MU's loss to a TWO SEED.  The lowest seeded team the great Bo Ryan has ever beaten in 9 years of tournement experience is a Five seed (they've done it twice including this year).  What would the opinion of Buzz been if we had just been beaten by a 8 seed?

I think it is more astounding how poorly he has done against HIGHER SEEDED (worse) teams.  I know I would have higher expectations if MU made the tournament 14 times in a row.  They have had some great seedings and done nothing with them.  I am ecstatic that MU outperformed their seed this year.

I was having a conversation with a BADger backer yesterday.  This guy absolutely has never said a cross word about BoBo before.  He is sick of the underperformance EVERY year.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think it is more astounding how poorly he has done against HIGHER SEEDED (worse) teams.  I know I would have higher expectations if MU made the tournament 14 times in a row.  They have had some great seedings and done nothing with them.  I am ecstatic that MU outperformed their seed this year.

I was having a conversation with a BADger backer yesterday.  This guy absolutely has never said a cross word about BoBo before.  He is sick of the underperformance EVERY year.

You assume because a team is HIGHER SEEDED they are "worse" and that's your flaw in your argument.

Sure, teams seeded 13-16 are worse teams because they are auto qualifiers from low conferences.  But anything from 12 and better does not mean they are a worse team.  VCU, as an 11 seed, will try to get to the Final Four tomorrow....are they a worse team?  Are they playing like a worse team?

Look at UK and OSU....is UK really a 4 seed?  Of course not...I said that day one when the tournament seedings came out.  Ridiculous to have UK a 4 and Florida a 2....so this idea that teams are "worse" or "better" solely by what the committee decides their seedings to be is an argument full of holes.  Sometimes the committee gets it right but often they overseed or underseed teams in the tournament. 

[Marquette84]

I think it is more astounding how poorly he has done against HIGHER SEEDED (worse) teams.  I know I would have higher expectations if MU made the tournament 14 times in a row.  They have had some great seedings and done nothing with them.  I am ecstatic that MU outperformed their seed this year.

I was having a conversation with a BADger backer yesterday.  This guy absolutely has never said a cross word about BoBo before.  He is sick of the underperformance EVERY year.

In Ryan's defense, many of those higher-seeded teams had already upset someone else.  

This year Butler may have been the higher-seeded team, but Butler already beat #1 seed Pitt.  A few years ago they lost as a 3 seed to 10 seed Davidson, but Davidson already beat the #2 seed Georgetown.

Its not like they were Xavier this year, who lost their opening round game to a higher seeded team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In Ryan's defense, many of those higher-seeded teams had already upset someone else.  

This year Butler may have been the higher-seeded team, but Butler already beat #1 seed Pitt.  A few years ago they lost as a 3 seed to 10 seed Davidson, but Davidson already beat the #2 seed Georgetown.

Its not like they were Xavier this year, who lost their opening round game to a higher seeded team.

Exactly!!

People look at the seeding but not the results or the quality of the team. 

[El Duderino]

Found this on another board

# of NCAA tourney wins since 2000,  # of McDonald's All Americans since 2000

1.  Duke, 31, 22
2.  Kansas, 30, 12
3.  UNC, 29, 22
3.  Mich St, 29, 7
5. UConn, 23, 6
5. Florida, 23, 8
7. UCLA, 21, 8
8. Kentucky, 20, 9
8. Arizona, 20, 5
10. Wisconsin, 18, 1
10. Texas, 18, 11
12. Pitt, 15, 1
13. Memphis, 14, 6

Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  They do more with less and then when they get to the tournament and lose, people pile on.  Simply put, they don't have the same talent as everyone else and the numbers above bear that out.

All that bears out is that Pitt and Wisconsin are the major exceptions, not the rule, and both Pitt/Wisky have never been able to reach Final Fours while all those other teams with the McDonald's All Americans have been able to. Multiple times in many cases.

Talent in all sports is what wins big, great coaching can only take limited talent just so far before that talent shortage loses out.

[NotAnAlum]

Exactly!!

People look at the seeding but not the results or the quality of the team. 

Sorry but its pretty tough to say that for 8 out of 9 years the Badgers have been the victim of bad seeding.  It sounds like using your logic any team you lost to was by definition better than you and therefore you should have lost.  If it was anybody else other than Bo the word would be "can't win the big games" and the fans would be pissed.  But with Bo there is always a logic explanation that keeps his reputation intact.

[brewcity77]

Found this on another board

# of NCAA tourney wins since 2000,  # of McDonald's All Americans since 2000

1.  Duke, 31, 22
2.  Kansas, 30, 12
3.  UNC, 29, 22
3.  Mich St, 29, 7
5. UConn, 23, 6
5. Florida, 23, 8
7. UCLA, 21, 8
8. Kentucky, 20, 9
8. Arizona, 20, 5
10. Wisconsin, 18, 1
10. Texas, 18, 11
12. Pitt, 15, 1
13. Memphis, 14, 6

Confirms also what I said the other day about Pitt and Wisconsin overachieving.  They do more with less and then when they get to the tournament and lose, people pile on.  Simply put, they don't have the same talent as everyone else and the numbers above bear that out.

How much of this is a simple product of appearances? Pitt and Wisconsin have been in every tournament over that time period. So I'm assuming this is an 11-year comparison, or does it include this year (making it 12 years?). That means that in 22 years of tournaments for the two teams, they won a combined 33 games, roughly 1.5 per year. Is that overachieving for teams that are usually seeded 6 or higher? I'd say that's probably par for the course, and considering the number of times both teams have been top-4 seeds, it's probably underachieving.

McDonald's All-Americans is a nice stat and all, but we all know (and you yourself have discussed recently) how much of a factor the final school choice is. Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Kentucky recruits are far more likely to be named to the McD's team than similarly ranked recruits at other schools. Will JP Tokoto be a McD's AA now that he committed to UNC? I'll bet any money his odds improved when he picked them over UW and MU.

But I digress. The simple truth is that these teams have a number of wins because they get there every year. Both Dixon and Bo have done an excellent job of managing their regular season schedules, especially in conference, but haven't replicated that success in the tournament. You can argue all you want, but UW hasn't come close to reaching expectations in March. 11-2 against double-digit seeds, 3-8 against single-digit seeds. Seeds matter.

And no, Kentucky is not better than a 4, they are a 4. This isn't Highlander (as mentioned elsewhere). Chicos, you yourself said that the Selection Committee is the ultimate arbiter of seeds, and that what they say is the final determination. That may not be the exact wording, and I don't have the time or motivation to dig up the quote, but that is what you meant. So yes, Kentucky's a 4, Butler's an 8, and the Badgers suck against single-digit seeds.

Furthermore, Bo's best win is against a 5-seed. Buzz's best win is against a 3-seed. Buzz has already bested Bo's biggest tourney accomplishment in terms of beating seeds. I realize they have lost to 1-seeds, but if they were truly living up to their hype, once in awhile they would actually beat a top-4 seed. They aren't and never have been a true title contender under Bo.

[ringout]

You assume because a team is HIGHER SEEDED they are "worse" and that's your flaw in your argument.

Sure, teams seeded 13-16 are worse teams because they are auto qualifiers from low conferences.  But anything from 12 and better does not mean they are a worse team.  VCU, as an 11 seed, will try to get to the Final Four tomorrow....are they a worse team?  Are they playing like a worse team?

Look at UK and OSU....is UK really a 4 seed?  Of course not...I said that day one when the tournament seedings came out.  Ridiculous to have UK a 4 and Florida a 2....so this idea that teams are "worse" or "better" solely by what the committee decides their seedings to be is an argument full of holes.  Sometimes the committee gets it right but often they overseed or underseed teams in the tournament. 

Chicos, I'd buy your BS if this were a one year issue.  BoBo has lost to lesser seeds consistently for 10 years.  I find it hilarious the extent to which you defend the coach of our largest in-state rival.  Truly epic.

Bo is a system coach who does really well in his league.  When he needs to game plan for something different, he's out of his depth.  We have a 10 year track record to evaluate.  

[HoopsMalone]

Chicos, I'd buy your BS if this were a one year issue.  BoBo has lost to lesser seeds consistently for 10 years.  I find it hilarious the extent to which you defend the coach of our largest in-state rival.  Truly epic.

Bo is a system coach who does really well in his league.  When he needs to game plan for something different, he's out of his depth.  We have a 10 year track record to evaluate.  

+1

Bo is not losing to North Carolina who overwhelmed a team or Stanford who had two big NBA ready trees to beat us in the last second.  Bo is not losing in the Final Four to an experienced Kansas team with a lot of NBA players on it.

Context does not help Bo.  Hope that MU starts catching some breaks in the next few years.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sorry but its pretty tough to say that for 8 out of 9 years the Badgers have been the victim of bad seeding.  It sounds like using your logic any team you lost to was by definition better than you and therefore you should have lost.  If it was anybody else other than Bo the word would be "can't win the big games" and the fans would be pissed.  But with Bo there is always a logic explanation that keeps his reputation intact.

Hardly.  Look how many years they beat those lower seeds. I think people here actually believe the first lower seed that team has played they lost to, which is almost never the case.  Usually they have defeated at lease one if not 3 lower seeds in a tournament before bowing out.

Every time one of those lower seeds advances, doesn't it further dilute the seeding they were given?  Was Kentucky really a 4 seed?  Was VCU really an 11 seed?  They certainly don't play like it in the tournament. 

Ultimately what I never understand with this argument is at what point do we forget the little number by the team in the bracket and say, WOW that team is good.  Butler is down 1 point at half right now trying to go to the Final Four BACK TO BACK YEARS.  Something tells me they are a pretty damn good team this time of year and the little 8 by their seed means a hill of beans...it's why they are playing to go to the FINAL FOUR.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, I'd buy your BS if this were a one year issue.  BoBo has lost to lesser seeds consistently for 10 years.  I find it hilarious the extent to which you defend the coach of our largest in-state rival.  Truly epic.

Bo is a system coach who does really well in his league.  When he needs to game plan for something different, he's out of his depth.  We have a 10 year track record to evaluate.  

Wrong...but we'll get to that in a minute.

Can I ask a question Ringout....does it matter that he's a coach for our in-state rival?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  If he were the coach of Washington State I'd say the same thing.  He's a class a prick but a damn good coach and does a lot with talent he doesn't have.

You're right, he's lost to lesser seeds in the last 10 years, but not consistently....what you keep ignoring is that they have beaten more of those seeds than they've lost to.  I'd take their record in a heartbeat over the next 10 years in the NCAA. We would dream of having the success they are having because we haven't had it since McGuire.

By the way, get your facts straight (you've been off your game several times in the last few days), he's lost to more "better" seeds than lower seeds.  6 of the last 10 exits have been to better seeds.  Four have been to lower seeds.  I fail to see how 40% of the time is "consistently" losing to a lesser seed.

2010-11, lost to a lower seed after beating two other lower seeds
2009-10, lost to a lower seed after beating a lower seed
2008-09, lost to a higher seed in 2nd  (after beating another higher seed)
2007-08, lost to a lower seed after beating two other lower seeds
2006-07, lost to a lower seed after beating a lower seed
2005-06, lost to a higher seed
2004-05, lost to a higher seed after beating three lower seeds
2003-04, lost to a higher seed after beating a lower seed
2002-03, lost to a higher seed after beating two lower seeds
2001-02, lost to a higher seed after beating a lower seed

At what point do you say, that "lesser" seeded team is a good team and made it to the Elite 8, Final Four, Sweet 16?  I guess I never hear anyone say that and do not understand that lack of logic.  I also never here about all the lower seeded teams they have defeated...weird that people try to have it both ways.

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Furthermore, Bo's best win is against a 5-seed. Buzz's best win is against a 3-seed. Buzz has already bested Bo's biggest tourney accomplishment in terms of beating seeds. I realize they have lost to 1-seeds, but if they were truly living up to their hype, once in awhile they would actually beat a top-4 seed. They aren't and never have been a true title contender under Bo.

That's exactly where I'm going with this.  Do you really believe Syracuse should have been a 3 seed?  Sorry, I don't buy it but that's where the committee put them.  Overseeded.  The seeding is not the end all be all of evaluating how good a team is.  If the seeding was, then all the proper seeds would win their games and upsets wouldn't happen.  There's a reason why VCU, an 11 seed, is playing for the Final Four tomorrow...because the 11 by their name means absolutely nothing.  It doesn't judge the true quality of their team but is instead a seeding number assigned by a committee that largely screws things up every year.  I find it interesting that so many people here are attaching themselves to these seeds and many of these same people think the committee sucks balls....yet it's the COMMITTEE that assigns these arbitrary seeds. Doesn't that strike any of you as patently absurd to support the committee's seeding but rip them at the same time for their choices?   

That is correct Brew, I did say they are the ultimate arbiter of the seeds....because they are the ONLY arbiter of the seeds.  If you look at what I said in that statement had to do with us being one of the last 6 teams in and where our seed was.  The seeding is the seeding because only that group of dopes can make it so.  It doesn't make them right....HUGE DIFFERENCE.

And sorry, I thought then and continue to think now that a 4 seed for Kentucky was absurd.  Jay Bilas agreed again last night with me as did just about every Ohio State fan.  But the committee, in their wisdom said they were.  Kentucky a 4 but BYU a 3....I'd take Kentucky over BYU 90 games out of 100.  Kentucky a 4 but Syracuse a 3...I'd take Kentucky 75 games out of 100 over Syracuse.  Kentucky a 4 but Notre Dame a 2....laughable.  There's a reason why Kentucky destroyed Notre Dame this year.

[ringout]

Can I ask a question Ringout....does it matter that he's a coach for our in-state rival?  What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  If he were the coach of Washington State I'd say the same thing.  He's a class a prick but a damn good coach and does a lot with talent he doesn't have.

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  

It matters that he coaches our in-state rival to those of us who have to suffer BADger BS all year long.  That's all.  You would hum a different tune if you lived here.

An isolated year of upset is one thing.  Bo has underperformed for 10 years.  You can use your tortured barroom lawyer logic all you want to twist my words.  If you can honestly say that Bo has not underperformed in the NCAA tournament, I know some BADger fans that will disagree with you.   

[El Duderino]

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.

Yes, Bo Ryan is a fabulous basketball coach at getting the best out of the talent he recruits. One of the best in the nation at it. As a fan of Wisconsin athletics, more hockey/football, but also basketball behind Marquette though, i appreciate what he's done for the program.

That said, he's been there over a decade now and has never shown to be a great recruiter. Very solid recruiter, but that's it. Mix in that i think it should be obvious now that really athletic, skilled, and highly recruited black wings and PF type of players seem to have no desire to play in Ryan's system, i highly doubt that he'll ever be able to recruit up to his coaching abilities.

So while history would suggest the odds are high that Bo will continue churning out 20-20 plus win seasons and big dance bids, i'll also bet against him making deep advances into the tournament even when things shake out favorably for him as it has multiple times. Come deep into the tournament time though is generally where the overall lack of talent, athletic ability, and an offense without diversity hurts him.

[HoopsMalone]

[quote author=ChicosBailBonds link=topic=26489.msg295978#msg295978 date=1301175877

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  

[/quote]

Since when does Bo not get good recruits?  His last two classes have not been too exciting, but the upperclassman he had out there were good recruits.  The Hughes/Bohannon team had mostly top recruits playing.  Butch was a high level recruit.

He is not getting Calipari or Roy recruits, sure.  But he has had equal or better talent coming in there for years.

[Lennys Tap]

So since we made the sweet 16 we were "underseeded" and deserved a 3 or 4 seed (where a team between 9-16 belongs) even though we're not as good as last year? Seems contradictory.

[HoopsMalone]

That said, he's been there over a decade now and has never shown to be a great recruiter. Very solid recruiter, but that's it. Mix in that i think it should be obvious now that really athletic, skilled, and highly recruited black wings and PF type of players seem to have no desire to play in Ryan's system, i highly doubt that he'll ever be able to recruit up to his coaching abilities.

Not a great recruiter compared to what?

[ringout]

So since we made the sweet 16 we were "underseeded" and deserved a 3 or 4 seed (where a team between 9-16 belongs) even though we're not as good as last year? Seems contradictory.

Chicos? contradictory?  Nah, can't be. 

God, I'd hate to be a co-worker.  Can you imagine all the wasted energy he uses at work for things that really matter?

[Pakuni]

That said, he's been there over a decade now and has never shown to be a great recruiter. Very solid recruiter, but that's it. Mix in that i think it should be obvious now that really athletic, skilled, and highly recruited black wings and PF type of players seem to have no desire to play in Ryan's system, i highly doubt that he'll ever be able to recruit up to his coaching abilities.

Can't believe I'm going to defend Bo, but .... Alando Tucker? Marcus Landry? Boo Wade? Even Ray Nixon?

Not that I disagree with your point entirely ... highly athletic kids generally want to play in more uptempo systems that utilize and accentuate their talents, and Bo's system ain't it. But I'm not sure what being highly recruited or black has to do with it. Do athletic white kids love Bo's system?

[El Duderino]

Not a great recruiter compared to what?

That should be obvious. Compared to better recruiters than Bo. Coaches that consistently bring in high end talent.

I'm not saying that's east to do given it is not. It also is true that Bo isn't just bringing in 2 star recruits and winning 20 plus games a year. Except for Brian Butch, Ryan generally recruits many 3 star types with a few 4 star kids thrown in which certainly is solid. He also recruits to his system. Take just one look at the bigs he goes after pretty much every year. Big white guys who can shoot jumpers. That's what he wants. He generally always also ends up having a black PG who develops into a better player under his system than that kid had stars before his name in high school.

It's mostly the wings area that kills him IMO. Besides Tucker years ago, Bo hasn't had another really athletic and skilled SG/SF who can create his own shot and be a lock down defender. Those type of kids seem to want no part of playing for Ryan and thus instead he ends up with Tim Jarmusz or Jason Bohannon types. Not bad players, but limited players. Can catch and shoot. Try hard defenders, but limited defenders. Can't create their own shot if their life depended on it.

[HoopsMalone]

That should be obvious. Compared to better recruiters than Bo. Coaches that consistently bring in high end talent.

I'm not saying that's east to do given it is not. It also is true that Bo isn't just bringing in 2 star recruits and winning 20 plus games a year. Except for Brian Butch, Ryan generally recruits many 3 star types with a few 4 star kids thrown in which certainly is solid. He also recruits to his system. Take just one look at the bigs he goes after pretty much every year. Big white guys who can shoot jumpers. That's what he wants. He generally always also ends up having a black PG who develops into a better player under his system than that kid had stars before his name in high school.

It's mostly the wings area that kills him IMO. Besides Tucker years ago, Bo hasn't had another really athletic and skilled SG/SF who can create his own shot and be a lock down defender. Those type of kids seem to want no part of playing for Ryan and thus instead he ends up with Tim Jarmusz or Jason Bohannon types. Not bad players, but limited players. Can catch and shoot. Try hard defenders, but limited defenders. Can't create their own shot if their life depended on it.

Hughes, Nankivil, Leuer, J-Bo were all 4 stars.  Krabenhoft and Butch were 5 stars.  Landry, Flowers, and Jordan Taylor were 3-stars. 

Over the last three or four seasons, who else has really played for them?  In almost every game, Bo's team took the floor with higher level recruits or equal compared to the opponent. 

Say what you want about Bo.  He is a good coach.  They are lucky to have him and most programs would too.  But, he has had talent in there.  Let's not pretend he is taking an intramural team out there.

[El Duderino]

Can't believe I'm going to defend Bo, but .... Alando Tucker? Marcus Landry? Boo Wade? Even Ray Nixon?

Not that I disagree with your point entirely ... highly athletic kids generally want to play in more uptempo systems that utilize and accentuate their talents, and Bo's system ain't it. But I'm not sure what being highly recruited or black has to do with it. Do athletic white kids love Bo's system?

I also said highly recruited. Tucker was a fabulous college player, but Bo wasn't fighting a bunch of big schools to land Tucker, he was simply under valued coming out of high school. Carl Landry wasn't much of an athlete, he was more cerebral and skilled than athlete. Nixon i'll grant was very athletic.

That said, we are talking about over a decade of Ryan recruits and you can pull out less than 5 examples of what i mentioned. I know race is a touchy subject, but it certainly is true that Ryan in most years fields one of if not the the whitest top 20teams in the country. That isn't just pure coincidence, nor am i saying it's wrong of Ryan to do. I'm also not implying that Bo doesn't recruit black players because obviously he does.

I'm simply saying that the fact that nearly all his bigs end up being white and so do most of his wings/SG/SF, it's not a fluke. I think it's a mix of the type of players he recruits for his system and some black players simply not interested in playing in that system, especially really athletic slashing types who want to run. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, did Wisconsin lose to a lesser seed or did they lose to a FINAL FOUR participant?

Again, the seed means jack.  You have to look at what the team actually does and how they perform.  Wisconsin lost to a Final Four participant...we may end up doing the same thing if UNC can win tomorrow.


Right on Cue Butler...thank you!   

[ChicosBailBonds]

It matters that he coaches our in-state rival to those of us who have to suffer BADger BS all year long.  That's all.  You would hum a different tune if you lived here.

An isolated year of upset is one thing.  Bo has underperformed for 10 years.  You can use your tortured barroom lawyer logic all you want to twist my words.  If you can honestly say that Bo has not underperformed in the NCAA tournament, I know some BADger fans that will disagree with you.   

How many times are you going to get your facts wrong...they've been bounced 6 times in the last 10 years by a "better seed" using YOUR criteria.  Using your OWN criteria you're wrong.  Priceless.

[ChicosBailBonds]

[quote author=ChicosBailBonds link=topic=26489.msg295978#msg295978 date=1301175877

At any rate, God help us if he ever gets good recruits because he does more with less than most coaches in this country.  That data provided earlier just another example showing the success they have had with that system.  



Since when does Bo not get good recruits?  His last two classes have not been too exciting, but the upperclassman he had out there were good recruits.  The Hughes/Bohannon team had mostly top recruits playing.  Butch was a high level recruit.

He is not getting Calipari or Roy recruits, sure.  But he has had equal or better talent coming in there for years.

We went through this a few months ago...he's had some good recruits, but a far cry from what we get at MU.  Furthermore, looking at that list of McDonald's All Americans, UW-madison and Pittsburgh get almost none, yet go to the NCAAs every year and have won a lot of NCAA games in the last ten years.  They do more with less talent than just about anyone in the country.  But yes, they get a few recruits but not the quality or quantity that other schools do with lesser results (Conference titles, regular season wins, tournament wins, etc)